Quartic decay (as Dr. Cheesman suggested) of light intensity vs. distance would suggest the universe is not 13,000,000,000 light years in "radius", but rather the square root of that, namely 114,000 light years across

Oh, it needs it's own thread. However, the only problem will be the lack of participation over there. There are simply not enough kooks to keep OW, UD, Brainstorms, and youngcosmos amusing. The most notable thing about most of those sites is the lack of discussion, in comparison to something as inane as "pokemon forum" which gets almost 50,000 hits in google, for example. And I imagine most of them get more traffic the all the ID forums combined!

Quote

I have less trouble than most regarding 6 literal days for creation as meaning the stars were made in those 6 days.

It's nice to see Sal openly admitting the depths of his folly though.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

The mission of YoungCosmos is to provide a forum where the most serious scientific objections to a Young Earth can be raised and carefully considered. Although the process may not be pleasant for those sympathetic to a Young Earth, the process is necessary for Young Earth theory to progress as a serious scientific competitor.

The mission of YoungCosmos is to provide a forum where the most serious scientific objections to a Young Earth can be raised and carefully considered. Although the process may not be pleasant for those sympathetic to a Young Earth, the process is necessary for Young Earth theory to progress as a serious scientific competitor.

Dedicated to exploring the possibility that all universe and life have come into existence very recently by an act of Intelligent Design

Well, Sal is a good sport to acknowledge what we've known all along, namely that there's no principled difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Or would Sal object that "Young Earth Intelligent Design" is a very different thing from Young Earth Creationism?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Quartic decay (as Dr. Cheesman suggested) of light intensity vs. distance would suggest the universe is not 13,000,000,000 light years in "radius", but rather the square root of that, namely 114,000 light years across

Oh, it needs it's own thread. However, the only problem will be the lack of participation over there. There are simply not enough kooks to keep OW, UD, Brainstorms, and youngcosmos amusing. The most notable thing about most of those sites is the lack of discussion, in comparison to something as inane as "pokemon forum" which gets almost 50,000 hits in google, for example. And I imagine most of them get more traffic the all the ID forums combined!

Quote

I have less trouble than most regarding 6 literal days for creation as meaning the stars were made in those 6 days.

It's nice to see Sal openly admitting the depths of his folly though.

Well, SN1987A is 169,000 light years away.

This distance is independent of the speed of light decaying or not! A counter-intuitive result, but oneyou can check for yourself.

SN1987A formed a ring, and light from the supernova bounced off the ring and arrived at earth 400 days later than the supernova. To keep the analysis simple, make a right triangle (the ring is not perpendicular but tilted in reality).

The angle is 1.66 arc seconds or 1.66 / 3600 degrees. The sine is the diameter of thering. The cosine is the distance to the supernova. The hypotenuse is the light bouncing off the ring. The path length difference is 400 days, since the hypotenuse and cosine are very close to the same length. Now assume that the speed of light was ten times faster for one year.Both rays of light travel the same distance (10 light years), with the remaining distance to be travelled still 400 light days different, and the light arrives 400 days apart.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

Dedicated to exploring the possibility that all universe and life have come into existence very recently by an act of Intelligent Design

Well, Sal is a good sport to acknowledge what we've known all along, namely that there's no principled difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Or would Sal object that "Young Earth Intelligent Design" is a very different thing from Young Earth Creationism?

Sal Cordova is a huge liability to any pretense that ID is not religion.

I couldn't be happier with Sal as a prominent internet advocate for Intelligent Design.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

FSM help me but I'm a masochist. I went and hit Sal with the same C14 cal curve consilience question in his C14 thread we've been beating AFDave with (I posted there as 'Tiggy' ). He's already gone through one iteration of mindless AIG C&P 'evidence' that completely fails to address the question. Wonder how long before he introduces Jesus into the equation? He's already brought in DA FLUD.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

One a craven YEC always a craven YEC I guess. Dembski and DaveTard woud be proud!

Now let's see how long before I get banned totally.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

scordova Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:04 pmDr. Jellison,I do not want to minimize whatsover that you may be right. I was merely pointing out the possible (even if remote) chance CDK might be able to survive the problem you pointed out. The eclipsing binaries in Andromeda may have an alternative explanation, and the fact that 9% of spectroscopic binaires are eclipsing was suggested as an anomaly (perhaps a disconfirming anomaly) as well. We are afterall only getting pulses out of "eclipsing binaries".

We do not in fact have their orbits in plain sight.

I read this and heard the distinct sound in my mind of:

"WERE YOU THERE?""WERE YOU THERE?""WERE YOU THERE?""WERE YOU THERE?""WERE YOU THERE?""WERE YOU THERE?""WERE YOU THERE?""WERE YOU THERE?"

--------------"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

Either that is more self-fluffing, or Sal must have been pretty knowledgeable about radiometric dating. From the ARN post linked above:

Quote

Quote

faded_Glory:Salvador,All you show are 'proofs by contradiction', but surely a young Earth would have many traces left of its short history? One example would be short-lived radioactive isotopes. Where are they?

fG, I do respect your opinion here, you are clearly more knowledgeble in these areas. I present the argument with caution, I could be wrong (and fall back to OEC), but for the sake of defending the YEC thesis, I will try to entertain your objection to the best of my ability.Can you point me to a link to spool me up on radiometric dating? Your question deserves to be answered. I will do my best to honor your question. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, however, there may be some possibilities to radioactive decay related to the speed of light being variable (strange as that may sound).

What a fluffer! The argument he cautiously presents is that "there may be some possibilities to radioactive decay related to the speed of light being variable" and to ask for a link where he can read up on radiometric dating. How telling that his personal research ignorant googling can augment YEC research. Sal puts the "fun" in fundie.

--------------Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

Sal is living up to his reputation as one of the most dishonest scumbag YECs to ever touch fingers to keyboard.

He is now using his Mod powers to go into threads I started, delete posts, and remove / edit damaging evidence without any notice that the post was edited by him.

What a dishonest piece of shit.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

I started getting interested in ID in 2001 when my father was terminally ill and I was searching for meaning in life. There were also future missionaries from my churches and Bible studies who were risking their lives for their faith. It bothered my conscience that if the Bible were false, I was merely encouraging them toward their doom. One of the missionaries was Heather Mercer who became world famous in 2001 when US Army rangers rescued her from the Taliban. Thus, I had to be assured that ID was probably true so I could sleep at night, for their sake. If ID were false, the moral thing to do would be to discourage them from being missionaries.

This sums up Sal. He re-imagines reality to compensate for his immorality.

Or, as Sal would say "Even Darwinists agree my reasoning on the subject belongs in textbooks."

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Oh no it's not, it's textbook YEC reasoning. If the world is old the Bible is false and god don't exist.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Oh no it's not, it's textbook YEC reasoning. If the world is old the Bible is false and god don't exist.

Well, The world IS old, the bible IS false, and god DON'T exist, so this is all valid reasoning.

--------------"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

It even didn't surprise me when he began cutting out parts of my replies to give the impression I agreed with him, again with no board notice

Now the cocksucker has started editing my posts and replacing my words with his own words praising Sal's work.

Not even AIG, ICR, or UncommonDescent stooped to falsifying posts under a user's name.

I hope everyone disseminates this far and wide, to let the world know what a worthless shitheel that asshole really is.

Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty right now.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

[admin note: Tiggy's post had some editorial imporvements made to it by the moderators]

The admin note was just added a few minutes ago, after which the post was locked so I can't edit it.

Sal's a classy act for sure

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

C'mon, folks, please remember that before hitting "Submit" for a comment at one of those antievolution advocate-run fora, "Select all" and "Copy" your work. Then bring it here and enter it in the appropriate thread. If you want to really give the admins at those other sites hissy fits, do what I used to do when posting to ISCID, and enter the comment here *first*, then drop in the link to the unedited original in the comment posted there. That way, if they remove the link that shows that they have no tolerance for open discussion, and if they leave it but muck about with your words, it will become obvious what they are up to.

Hey Sal .....JESUS MUST BE SPINNING IN HIS GRAVE.Salvadore Cordova is about as useful as a one-legged man in an arse kicking contest.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

To finish my story, Sal the Shithead just deleted all my posts and deleted my account

I'd much rather have that than have the asshole posting stuff in my name.

Gawd, I feel dirty after having to deal with that scumbag. I'm gonna go take a nice hot shower and try to scrub off the stink.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Rhetoric is civic discourse. It depends on the willingness to engage the other. Given the passionate commitment of participants in the YEC debate, it's not surprising that passions get engaged.

In this regard, notions of "politeness" can morph very easily, and have already on these forums, into practices of policing that always end up protecting the owners of the forum. The Young Comos "discussion" forums are quickly morphing into a set of manifestly unfair forums -- among the least fair I've ever seen -- where "civility" is used like a cudgel and rhetorically suspect practices (such as changing the words of a poster) are not treated as gross violations of decent practice.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

The red line is the super imposed line from the above fabricated points. The redline is where we would expect FABRICATED points to lie (give or take a little going up or down). The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.

There are more details to consider, but the point was to show that FABRICATED ages will result in downward slanting lines.

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …

The moderators seem to have taken Tiggy's posts and moved them silently to a location called "the recycle bin." These posts are apparently called "uncivil" because they say that Sal doesn't know what he's talking about with respect to C14 and that Sal's "refutation" of C14 by means of random numbers is "stupid." Apparently such comments are deemed too much for the delicate sensibilities of the moderators. So:

Forums then:

Forums now:

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

After ignoring my querry [sic] to do a simply calculation, I do the calculations.

Tiggy then offers his unuseful opinion after I make the calculations. Tiggy's posts on my C-14 thera [sic] are subject to the follwoing [sic] rule: If I find them uninformative, they'll end up in the recycle bin.

He can reciprocate on any thread he starts and treat me the same way. He is a co-moderator in that respect. Although, I have no intention of making too many appearances on his threads if any at all.

Offering the opponent a chance at reciprocal moderation abuse is hardly symmetrical behavior. especially when the major dialogue opponent refuses to engage in any forum he does not control.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

The red line is the super imposed line from the above fabricated points. The redline is where we would expect FABRICATED points to lie (give or take a little going up or down). The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.

There are more details to consider, but the point was to show that FABRICATED ages will result in downward slanting lines.

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …

The colored points on the graph are actual empirical data from peer-reviewed studies. They show that the racemization constant for the amino acid decay in NOT constant but decreases with time.

The equation Sal uses to generate his red line is an approximation that was derived from that empirical data.

OF COURSE if you plug any numbers into it you're going to get the same sloping line SAL YOU FUCKING MORON

The green line that Sal says is the "good" data is what you get if you assume the racemization constant IS actually constant over time. Problem is, both YEC authors that Sal is drawing from acknowledge that is NOT the case

Quote

M Brown: Let's look at the graph below. If Amino Acid dating was a predictable process, like other dating techniques with a predictable rate, the points on the chart would align themselves in a horizontal line. That would indicate that the Racemization constant really is a constant. It would mean that this method would be able to predict an age by itself. It would indicated that the rate would be the same rate for all the samples collected.

This is definitely not the case. Looking at the graph we can see that the Racemization constant changes almost as much as the predicted date!

Quote

RH Brown: The most impressive immediate impact of these plots is that for a particular amino acid there is no characteristic racemization rate constant that can be used to estimate the age of every fossil containing that amino acid. If each amino acid could be described by a characteristic racemization rate constant as a component of fossil protein, the data points in figures (3) and (4) would cluster about a horizontal line. The demonstrated clustering about a line which slopes downward indicates that the apparent racemization rate constant is actually not a constant, but is related to fossil age, diminishing as age increases. This observation has been made frequently in the literature (e.g., Lajoie et al. 1980, Bada and Schroeder 1972, King and Hare 1972, Wehmiller and Hare 1971, Hare and Mitterer 1966).

So not only does Sal not understand C14 dating, he doesn't even understand the YEC articles he is arguing!

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Oops! Two other posters noticed the rash of deletions, and had the nerve to question the Mighty Sal

Quote

chunk: Hi,If you believe in freedom of expression why are you editing peoples posts and deleting peoples accounts and posts?

/confused

Quote

rrf:Sal quoting from John Stuart Mill

Quote

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …

You know, Sal, as you pretend to honor Mill while concurrently editting and deleting the comments of dissenting posters, you would do well to remember Psalm 101:7 which says "No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one whospeaks falsely will stand in my presence."

Sal deleted these from the Board Comments as soon as he saw them, but forgot that they are still visible in the Recycle bin.

Hermagoras' posts (see above) got waxed too.

Looks like Sal has a mini palace revolt on his hands.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

speaking of ISCID, it doesn't make sense that PCID is defunct. The procedure for submitting papers to PCID is to post them to the ISCID Archive. Then, one of the ISCID creationist honchos approves it and it goes into the next issue. There are a dozen or so submissions since the last issue in Dec 2005. Why let your journal go defunct when you could just bundle those as your next issue? Why let us exult in the fact that Revolutionary New ID Science can't keep a single journal going, when you could just round up these bullshit 'papers' and pretend not to be defunct?

Wes and Steve would never stoop to editting other people's posts because we here at AtBC are not afraid of dissent or discussion. Also because we know we have the facts on our side!

Louis

Edited by stevestory and Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 03 2007, 16:24

No it fecking well wasn't. WRE

Yes it fecking well was. SQS

Will the pair of you knock it off? All this editting of posts and reality by supplying overwhelming and uncontrovertable evidence is interfering with my young earth creationism.

This post is purely intended as mockery of Salvador "I love lying, me" Cordova's Iraqi Information Minister-like tendancies when it comes to editting other people's posts. I categorically state, for the record, that neither Wesley R. Elsberry, nor Steve Story have ever editted any other poster's posts to the best of my knowledge. Except this one. Which of course they didn't edit. I should also point out that neither of them is a member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. a) Because it doesn't exist and b) because at least 50% of them are not an atheist. Why does my head hurt? I should always remember never to try to duplicate UD style tard on a full stomach.

Oops! Two other posters noticed the rash of deletions, and had the nerve to question the Mighty Sal

Quote

chunk: Hi,If you believe in freedom of expression why are you editing peoples posts and deleting peoples accounts and posts?

/confused

Quote

rrf:Sal quoting from John Stuart Mill

Quote

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …

You know, Sal, as you pretend to honor Mill while concurrently editting and deleting the comments of dissenting posters, you would do well to remember Psalm 101:7 which says "No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one whospeaks falsely will stand in my presence."

Sal deleted these from the Board Comments as soon as he saw them, but forgot that they are still visible in the Recycle bin.

Hermagoras' posts (see above) got waxed too.

Looks like Sal has a mini palace revolt on his hands. :p

How old is Sal anyway? He seems like such a child.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

especially when the major dialogue opponent refuses to engage in any forum he does not control.

I limit where I will participate, but I know of some open fora that I don't control that I would trust for a discussion, the USENET newsgroup talk.origins being the most prominent. I have tried to treat discussions where I am moderator with care; you may have noticed that any post that I edit automatically is labeled as having been edited by me. So far, my changes to content of comments has been limited to fixing up broken URLs and the like. Spam gets deleted on sight, and banned people's comments are likewise deleted as they are recognized.

Sal Cordova himself has previously used the fora here to criticize things I've written, and his posts, filled with falsehoods as they are, remain unmolested here.

Cordova:

Quote

His posts violated forum rules and thus were free game for mutilation and humiliation and pranking. It was marginally entertaining.

I have found that Sal's comments require no further changes to be humiliating. Of course, humiliation requires a capacity to experience shame, and it appears that many antievolutionists have a conscience-ectomy at the same time they get their moral compass degaussed, depriving them of a range of human experience that would be good for them.

Oh well. Someone here once had as an avatar a picture (now that I think of it, it might have been either Penn or Teller) pointing angrily and saying 'shut the feck up'. and i loved it. and now it is gone. probably one of those darwinist dirty tricks davetard is wanting to chronicle.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

especially when the major dialogue opponent refuses to engage in any forum he does not control.

I limit where I will participate, but I know of some open fora that I don't control that I would trust for a discussion, the USENET newsgroup talk.origins being the most prominent. I have tried to treat discussions where I am moderator with care; you may have noticed that any post that I edit automatically is labeled as having been edited by me. So far, my changes to content of comments has been limited to fixing up broken URLs and the like. Spam gets deleted on sight, and banned people's comments are likewise deleted as they are recognized.

Sal Cordova himself has previously used the fora here to criticize things I've written, and his posts, filled with falsehoods as they are, remain unmolested here.

Cordova:

Quote

His posts violated forum rules and thus were free game for mutilation and humiliation and pranking. It was marginally entertaining.

I have found that Sal's comments require no further changes to be humiliating. Of course, humiliation requires a capacity to experience shame, and it appears that many antievolutionists have a conscience-ectomy at the same time they get their moral compass degaussed, depriving them of a range of human experience that would be good for them.

We all limit where we will participate. What Sal has done is egregious on many, many levels, as I am pointing out:

Quote

scordova"

Quote

reciprocal opportunity is Tiggy setting up his own website and seeing who wants to listen to him and engage his arguments

Invitation to the public to participate is dropped. People interested in sophistry rather than science are shown the door. You can set up your forum the way you want.

I have prominently posted critical objections to my ideas by qualified scientists like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison in this forum. Tiggy couldn't even solve a simple algebra problem yet claimed years of grad level math. Heck,the problem was hardly arithmetic!

His posts violated forum rules and thus were free game for mutilation and humiliation and pranking. It was marginally entertaining.

Not really.

Show me one respectable board where the moderator plays by your rules (mutilating posts and only acknowledging such mutilation when caught). It's unethical behavior, pure and simple. Besides, Tiggy's posts were not ad hominem. They questioned your behavior, not your person. If anything was off-topic, your algebra problem was. Why should Tiggy be your performing monkey when you won't even answer his on-topic questions and when you ask him questions in a thread to which you will not admit him entry?

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Please join my thread The Rhetoric of Moderation over at Young Cosmos. I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission, unless he violates his own stated rules. (Well, I mean violates them worse than he usually does.)

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Oh well. Someone here once had as an avatar a picture (now that I think of it, it might have been either Penn or Teller) pointing angrily and saying 'shut the feck up'. and i loved it. and now it is gone. probably one of those darwinist dirty tricks davetard is wanting to chronicle.

That was Louis' previous avatar, which conveyed that he not only didn't suffer fools gladly, but gladly made fools to suffer. Flat Feynman seems a tad less hostile, with a bit more twinkle.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Addendum: I started this thread and so I decide who gets invited. And I say everybody should come here (Sal included), discuss the rhetoric of moderation, and nobody on this thread should be moved to the Recycle Bin. Those are my rules.

Sal responds:

Quote

I will do my best to honor them.

WTF? How hard is it to honor? Just don't kick anybody off.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission,

Oh, to be young and naive again...

:p

he he.

Meanwhile, Sal responds:

Quote

Regarding moderation and rhetoric.

One rhetorical move is:

1. Heckle and troll an otherwise sound argument

2. The Heckler gets himself tossed

3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures

Tiggy's rhetorical maneuvers were excellent tactics for shutting down debate. It is known as "the nuclear option".

Contrast the treatment I gave Tiggy versus the critiques of my ideas prominently posted and highlighted in this forum

My critics like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison have forced several reversals and retractions of ideas I and other YECs have held. I and Barry have publicly acknowledge them.

I removed Tiggy because Heckler's can destroy a good rhetorical exchange. The ARN Rule 9 was to allow one-on-one or limited debate to take place and drive Hecklers from the fray.

I allowed some Heckling by Tiggy, but when a concerted spam attack was mounted on the forum last night, I decided enough was enough.

Sooooo, the bottom line. Good rhetorical exchanges need to allow order and exclusion.

Not hecklers shouting at each other. Heckling and shouting matches destroy interest level by the readers.

Finally, my absolute disdain for Tiggy's stupidity was showing, and that did not reflect well on me. When some loser like Tiggy claims to have grad level math and can't solve a high school algebra problem, I flip my lid. It's ok not to be able to solve a math problem. But for Tiggy to be claiming intellectual superiority when it's so obvious the guy is clueless, I quickly lose patience.

I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight

To which I respond:

Quote

I did not think Tiggy's questions were either stupid or answered. He asked about multiple confirming lines of evidence with respect to C14 data. In response, you quoted a 30 year old paper which has gotten almost no attention in the scholarly literature and asked him to prove his bona fides by solving an algebra problem. Further, you accused him of engaging in circular reasoning when he clearly was not.

You say he could not solve the problem. I say he did not, and that it was irrelevant.

Finally, you're right that your disdain "did not reflect well on [you]." Nor does this post. What kind of person talks of other people as "scum"?

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission,

Oh, to be young and naive again...

:p

he he.

Meanwhile, Sal responds:

Quote

Regarding moderation and rhetoric.

One rhetorical move is:

1. Heckle and troll an otherwise sound argument

2. The Heckler gets himself tossed

3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures

Tiggy's rhetorical maneuvers were excellent tactics for shutting down debate. It is known as "the nuclear option".

Contrast the treatment I gave Tiggy versus the critiques of my ideas prominently posted and highlighted in this forum

My critics like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison have forced several reversals and retractions of ideas I and other YECs have held. I and Barry have publicly acknowledge them.

I removed Tiggy because Heckler's can destroy a good rhetorical exchange. The ARN Rule 9 was to allow one-on-one or limited debate to take place and drive Hecklers from the fray.

I allowed some Heckling by Tiggy, but when a concerted spam attack was mounted on the forum last night, I decided enough was enough.

Sooooo, the bottom line. Good rhetorical exchanges need to allow order and exclusion.

Not hecklers shouting at each other. Heckling and shouting matches destroy interest level by the readers.

Finally, my absolute disdain for Tiggy's stupidity was showing, and that did not reflect well on me. When some loser like Tiggy claims to have grad level math and can't solve a high school algebra problem, I flip my lid. It's ok not to be able to solve a math problem. But for Tiggy to be claiming intellectual superiority when it's so obvious the guy is clueless, I quickly lose patience.

I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight

To which I respond:

Quote

I did not think Tiggy's questions were either stupid or answered. He asked about multiple confirming lines of evidence with respect to C14 data. In response, you quoted a 30 year old paper which has gotten almost no attention in the scholarly literature and asked him to prove his bona fides by solving an algebra problem. Further, you accused him of engaging in circular reasoning when he clearly was not.

You say he could not solve the problem. I say he did not, and that it was irrelevant.

Finally, you're right that your disdain "did not reflect well on [you]." Nor does this post. What kind of person talks of other people as "scum"?

In general those kinds of words would get you moved to the Bathroom Wall, but this time I'm regarding them as a kind of involuntary yelp produced by running into the astonishingly dishonest Salvador Cordova. There is absolutely nothing I would put past that guy. I wouldn't feel a twinge of surprise If he just started writing approving comments under our names on his site.

I'm well aware from a rhetorical perspective the advantage the other side has in preying upon the lack of familiarity by the audience with the subject matter.

Then chunk complains I haven't convinced him. I ask if he even understands rate constants or read the papers. Attributing his lack of understanding to my inability to explain is infuriating. It does not reflect well on me when this button is pushed.

It would be like me spending two hours giving a mathematicl proof for something, and then someone casually saying, "I don't see your point." I then realize they didn't even understand the basics and are uwilling to even learn the basics before they offer reasoned critiques. I honestly thought to myself, "YOU RETARD, you complain I didn't explain myself well, when in fact it's your inability to understand the science."

I'm willing to help and teach, I'm uwilling to spoon feed. When I get objections from people demanding to be spoon fed, I'll happily shove the spoon down their throat. When I get that mad, it does not reflect well on me or this forum.

In contrast, someone willing to learn, who does not know anything, I'm willing to teach.

Let me just pause for a moment to say, what an a*****e.

Whew. I feel better.

Ok, now I, Hermagoras, respond:

Quote

Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

scordova wrote: 3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures

Or perhaps the Hecklers arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with that the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures. Tiggy raised some very interesting points that I was eager to see discussed. Your response was to edit, move/hide, and avoid questions. Very disappointing.

Quote

I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight.

Sal, you put yourself out there in the public eye in the Evolution vs creation controversy. You speak in public, you blog in public, you even wade into public forums like Scienceblogs and the Sci Phi Show. You positively gush when someone acknowledges seeing you on C-SPAN. Now, all of a sudden, we are supposed to believe you are some sensitive flower that withers under heat? I don't buy it. The only difference as far as I can tell between this forum and others that you participate is that this is your forum where you can't walk away when the questions get too tough, but you can wield the tools of moderation to ensure that someone who disagrees with you doesn't get a fair hearing.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.

Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.

Again with the Bender. You're taking one sentence out of a 33 year old letter to Nature that has had virtually no impact. Google Scholar has it cited 5 times, and 2 of those cites are by creationists: Brown and Gish. So I'd say its impact is virtually nil.

Why? Perhaps because Bada, who is the target of Bender's critique, gave a devastating reply in the same issue. (This is not cited by Brown. I wonder why?) Bada's response begins:

Quote:

Bender's review of my work is both inaccurate and incomplete. He has not cited two of my publications dealing with aspartic acid racemisation dating. (Although one paper was only recently published. I sent Bender a preprint the first or this year when he informed me he was writing a review.) In those articles I show that after ‘calibrating' the amino acid racemisation reactions using a radiocarbon dated bone, it is then possible to date other bones from the same site, which are either too old or too small for radiocarbon dating. The only assumption in this approach is that the average temperature experienced by the calibration sample is representative of the average temperature experienced by the other sample. Ages thus deduced are in good agreement with radiocarbon ages determined on the same samples.

No wonder nobody took Bender's critique seriously since then. Meanwhile Brown quotes one sentence as though it proves something and you quote indirectly (via Brown) rather than from the original paper. If you'd read the original, as I have, you'd see that it was dispatched immediately.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

About Bender (now at Princeton). He seems like a fine scientist. Note that he's not published any rebuttal of Bada since 1974. So if his 1974 critique was so great, why hasn't he picked up on it? He provides the answer in his final paragraph:

Quote

Their findings, and the fact that reasonable ages and temperatures are sometimes obtained, indicates that the method has potential. It clearly faces many basic problems, however, and in my opinion no palaeoclinatic or geochronological inferences should be drawn from racemisation data until the basic geochemistry is thoroughly understood and the bases or the method firmly established.

Since then, of course, the geochemistry has advanced considerably. Bender, as a major geochemist, has apparently not seen fit to attack the dating method since 1974. Which suggests that quoting that 1974 paper (indirectly, via Brown) as support of anything today is not really going to solve anything.

Are you saying he's some sort of a coward or co-conspirator? Or perhaps a "retard"? Or, maybe, you know, "scum"?

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

I've probably missed it, but I haven't seen you quote from any contemporary scientific literature on the issue, so it's hard to see any contact with the literature "as it stands." Rather, you quote (via a secondary source) a sentence from a 33 year old rebutted letter.

I have recently learned of the competing terms "quote mining" and "literature bluffing" to refer to various tactics allegedly used by opponents in this debate.

This example isn't literature bluffing, since it shows no contact with the recent literature. But it's sure quote mining.

I think this is a common rhetorical tactic of creationists: take a sentence, quote it out of context, and then circulate it -- it's a game of "telephone" or what the British sometimes call "Chinese whispers." What it is not is a responsible use of sources.

Again, I'm pointing out something very specific about the rhetoric of this debate.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

As one who makes his living in the arts, I have no idea what sal's response had to do with anything, let alone your comment.

Sal strikes me as that undergrad, who immediately after listening to some lecture, sits in the cafeteria discussing how the State of Missouri can easily secede from the union and become an independent country.

If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.

Speaking of not being able to understand or do math, one can check out Sal blithering on about the TSPGRID example and "omega". Here's my response to Sal's rant...

Quote

Sal,

Yes, that is amusing. Wrong again, but amusing.

As to definitions, I have repeatedly made the point that what CSI is depends upon how it is recognized, which is a property (allegedly) of the math Dembski has given. The “physical/conceptual” text is a descriptive interpretation of what the math defines. It is not, itself, the definition. We addressed the math. We didn’t address every handwaving description Dembski wrote.

As to “omega”, Sal is utterly confused. There are two different uses of “omega” in Dembski’s stuff. In The Design Inference, “omega” refers to “probabilistic resources”, a mapping function that yields “saturated” probabilities and events. TSPGRID doesn’t change “omega”_TDI, contrary to Sal’s claim. In No Free Lunch, “omega” is the “reference class of possible events”. TSPGRID is incapable of “increasing omega” by its operation.

Dembski discusses calculation of “omega” on p.52 of NFL. There, he gives the example of a six-sided die rolled 6,000,000 times. His “omega” for this “event” is “all 6-tuples of nonnegative integers that sum to 6,000,000”. In other words, “omega” includes every possible way that one could roll a die 6,000,000 times. In other equations, if one rolls an n-sided die k time, “omega” is k*n. (This is for the case in which only the distribution of rolls matters, which is the context of Dembski’s example, and not the sequence of rolls. For a sequence of die rolls, “omega” becomes n^k.)

As for the Sal’s claim that TSPGRID “increases omega as it outputs data”, that’s just silly. One does have to take into account the number of runs of TSPGRID, just as Sal takes into account the number of coins in his idee fixe. Sal’s objection to TSPGRID is exactly the same as objecting to coin-stacking on the grounds that he “increases omega as he adds coins”.

Sal says that we didn’t give “omega” for TSPGRID. This is literally true, but we do expect some minimal competence from our readers. The “omega”_NFL for TSPGRID with 4n^2 nodes run k times stated in the same way as Dembski’s dice example is “all (4n^2)!-tuples of nonnegative integers that sum to k”, or, more simply, k*(4n^2)! as anyone with a clue should be able to work out from the information that we gave. If you change n or k, you get a different “omega”, just as you get a different “omega” if you stack dice instead of coins, or stack a different number of dice or coins. Once n and k are fixed, as in some specific instance of one or more runs of TSPGRID to be analyzed as an “event” in Dembski’s parlance, “omega” is fixed as well.

So Sal’s random charge of “error” here is just as amusingly inept as his previous outings. It seems that Sal is not well acquainted with Dembski’s work, as “omega” is not all that mysterious. I suspect that Sal “knows” that the TSPGRID example just “has” to be wrong, therefore, any scattershot objection made will do. But if TSPGRID were actually wrong, and Sal were actually capable of analyzing it, he would have come up with a valid objection in the first place, and not have had to resort to flinging any odd objection at hand and hoping something sticks. So far there has been the “a deterministic version of TSPGRID doesn’t output CSI!” objection (which is why TSPGRID is non-deterministic), the “TSPGRID doesn’t provide PHYSICAL information!” objection (though several of Dembski’s own examples share this “error” and a run of TSPGRID or any other algorithm certainly is physical), and now the “you didn’t say what Omega was!” objection (where “omega” is easily calculated given the information we provided).

But I guess I will have to make do with amusement at further instances of random objections.

Asshat Cordova: If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.

I wonder if that idiot Cordova thinks he's fooling anybody with his BS? I wasn't trying to refute the math, I was pointing out his improper use of the math based on ridiculous unsupported assumptions, and the resultant asinine conclusions. I explained why it was GIGO (a term that Sal deleted immediately) in all its blazing glory. I told the idiot that I refused to be sidetracked with his disingenuous demands that I plug some totally irrelevant numbers into a calculator, and that I had wasn't going to let him evade discussion that way. I kept hitting him with questions about the Brown articles (both of them) and his assumptions. He kept cowardly ignored the questions so I kept asking them, finally getting to the ugly episode of him changing the words in my post.

His charge that I was 'spamming' was when I twice went in and changed my words back (before he locked me out of the thread and banned me that is). Nice that he still keeps taking shots at me when I can't speak to defend myself.

Sal now ranks up there with the most repugnant spineless cowards I have ever had the displeasure to deal with.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Asshat Cordova: If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.

I wonder if that idiot Cordova thinks he's fooling anybody with his BS? I wasn't trying to refute the math, I was pointing out his improper use of the math based on ridiculous unsupported assumptions, and the resultant asinine conclusions. I explained why it was GIGO (a term that Sal deleted immediately) in all its blazing glory. I told the idiot that I refused to be sidetracked with his disingenuous demands that I plug some totally irrelevant numbers into a calculator, and that I had wasn't going to let him evade discussion that way. I kept hitting him with questions about the Brown articles (both of them) and his assumptions. He kept cowardly ignored the questions so I kept asking them, finally getting to the ugly episode of him changing the words in my post. :angry:

His charge that I was 'spamming' was when I twice went in and changed my words back (before he locked me out of the thread and banned me that is). Nice that he still keeps taking shots at me when I can't speak to defend myself.

Sal now ranks up there with the most repugnant spineless cowards I have ever had the displeasure to deal with.

It isn't new dude. Sal has been that way for quite some time. Why post on a site where he has control? You gotta know that he would "modify" your posts.

That guy is the sorta prick that would use ten sentences containing the longest words he can google to say something simple.

example:

Quote

If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct.

his one man moderation band is feeling the strain I think, at least he seems to be getting more and more ill-tempered. His tactic of ignoring critical questions fails to work when nobody else is replying. They are just left hanging (when not deleted).

Pass the popcorn Lenny.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Somewhere in the AtBC archives is a thread between me and Sal. After I pestered him for months at PT with a few simple questions (which he never answered), he finally got all ballsy on me and "challenged" me to "debate" him here (which led me to question whether it was even really him).

He lasted less than two days before he tucked tail and ran like a little girl.

I was trying to point out the focus on rhetoric can compromise the focus on facts. The racemization data are facts. Opinions, even by scientists are secondary. Even less relevant to truthfulness are the rhetorical forms used to debate the issue.

When engineers build spaceships they'll either fly or not. The rhetoric they use to claim their invention will work is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the claim.

If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.

Hermagoras (using Tiggy/OC's fine post here as inspiration):

Quote

This is rich, considering that the vast majority of ID and creationist writing amounts to rhetorical critique.

You didn't actually provide any facts or data.

Let me point out again that Tiggy didn't try to refute the math because that wasn't his point. His point was rather about the use of the math. I believe the term you engineers use is "GIGO."

The fact that nobody who actually works in the field would accept your critique suggests that something's at issue besides the blindness or stupidity of everybody but you. Unless you're really the smartest guy ever (but that position has already been claimed by autodidact DaveScot at UD).

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Somewhere in the AtBC archives is a thread between me and Sal. After I pestered him for months at PT with a few simple questions (which he never answered), he finally got all ballsy on me and "challenged" me to "debate" him here (which led me to question whether it was even really him).

He lasted less than two days before he tucked tail and ran like a little girl.

He is a ball-less coward.

I remember your Sal questions over at PT. I also remember him not ever answering. Sal is probably the most anoying (to me) UD poster. Quite an acomplishment considering the company he is in.

Speaking of not being able to understand or do math, one can check out Sal blithering on about the TSPGRID example and "omega".

Sal has a major brain cramp that prevents him from grokking issues having to do with the conservation of CSI.

One of his typical examples of CSI is 500 coins on the floor all heads up, which he says constitutes 500 bits of CSI. Even if the coins were turned heads up by a deterministic process, say a robot, Sal insists that the all-heads-up pattern has 500 bits of CSI. He's been claiming this for over three years now, even though I've pointed out to him repeatedly that we can always increase the number of coins to exceed the CSI in the robot. (This is exactly the point of TSPGRID, except that TSPGRID is a better example since it's nondeterministic.)

When I tried to pin him down on this a year ago, the conversation went nowhere, with Sal claiming that he needed Dembski to explain the following parenthetical statement from NFL:

Quote

(if A is defined in relation to \Omega_1 and B in relation to \Omega_2, we can let \Omega be the Cartesian product of \Omega_1 and \Omega_2, and then embed A and B canonically in \Omega)

Dembski's statement is perfectly clear, and I explained it in detail to Sal, but Sal said he needed to hear it from Dembski.

Amazingly, as of a few weeks ago, Sal still didn't understand the problem with the robot and the coins:

Quote

Sal: For example, it is improbable that 500 coins in a room on the floor will be heads. It is theoretically possible that there exists a robot governed by deterministic laws which can take the coins in a room and ensure any initial condition of coins in the room will eventually result in 500 coins being heads by the operation of the robot. However, the a priori probability of such a machine existing in the first place (via a stochastic process) is on average more remote than the chance of 500 coins being heads. A bit value can then be assigned to the a priori probability of the robot being the source of a new probability distribution.

My favorite post to Sal ever. Do you think he'll get the double meaning of the last paragraph?

Quote

Following up on some comments earlier:

Quote

I was trying to point out the focus on rhetoric can compromise the focus on facts.The racemization data are facts.

A couple of points: 1. You continue to have a really strange view of rhetoric, one that is best described as outdated. In this statement, for example, you hold to a notion of "rhetoric vs. facts," as though facts can be known outside of their articulation. Rhetoric is nowadays best understood as "a way of knowing," that is, as epistemic.

2. Which data are facts? The ones you posted that were admittedly made up?

Quote

Opinions, even by scientists are secondary. Even less relevant to truthfulness are the rhetorical forms used to debate the issue.

I won't comment on the even cruder distinction between "fact" and "opinion," which is one that I complicate in the first day of the composition classes I teach. Suffice it to say that you set up this forum by declaring your stated interest in the importance of rhetoric. For you to dismiss it now as not "relevant to truthfulness" (in a creationist forum, I want to say "truthiness") is a bit strange. But that is the way of your flock. A great many of your compatriots spend the bulk of their time doing nothing but rhetorical criticism. That's where I would put Jonathan Wells's Icons and pretty much the entire output of Philip Johnson. Dembski is more than rhetoric in philosophical drag: his work also includes pseudo-mathematics and theology ("explanations of the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing," as Mencken put it). But "rhetoric" suddenly becomes unimportant when you think you've got a fact in your hand -- when in fact, you don't even have one in the bush.

Quote

When engineers build spaceships they'll either fly or not. The rhetoric they use to claim their invention will work is irrelevant to the truthfulness the claim.

That's interesting but wrong. Didn't you take technical writing? The rhetoric of documentation in engineering is crucial to whether it will fly or not. For example, one of the most important thinkers in visual rhetoric of science, Edward Tufte of Yale, has blamed the rhetorical structure of PowerPoint for the Columbia disaster. See his Beautiful Evidence (Graphics Press) for details.

Quote

If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

I'm actually judging based on your failure to provide actual evidence. Like your man Dembski, you are overrating the importance of philosophy in science (hence words like "invalid," "illogical," and "first principles").

Look, I don't know you. But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works. You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience. Am I wrong?

Seriously, I'm really proud of that last paragraph.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Look, I don't know you. But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works. You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience. Am I wrong?

Seriously, I'm really proud of that last paragraph.

Hermagoras

You SHOULD be proud of that last paragraph.

But I can't imagine that Sal will ever get it.

Which, of course, makes it even more delicious!

Well done.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

Look, I don't know you. But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works. You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience. Am I wrong?

Seriously, I'm really proud of that last paragraph.

Hermagoras

You SHOULD be proud of that last paragraph.

But I can't imagine that Sal will ever get it.

Which, of course, makes it even more delicious!

Well done.

Thanks!

Disclaimer: as a major free speech advocate, I'm not against learning from "the literature" (wink wink). In fact, I spent most of my teen years deeply immersed in "the literature." But what I learned was unrealistic, and real-world experience tempered my views.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

A look into the Recycle Bin over at Young Cosmos offers some interesting, if disturbing, insights into the machinations taking place inside Sal's noggin. He apparently commandeers people's login, and post the most juvenile of rants under their name, then may even follow up using other pseudonyms.

I guess I understand why he doesn't have moderator duties over at UD. He could actually make UD even more of a farce.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

A look into the Recycle Bin over at Young Cosmos offers some interesting, if disturbing, insights into the machinations taking place inside Sal's noggin. He apparently commandeers people's login, and post the most juvenile of rants under their name, then may even follow up using other pseudonyms.

I guess I understand why he doesn't have moderator duties over at UD. He could actually make UD even more of a farce.

Holy thread convergence, Batman! My post on this very practice of moving and erasure used Stalin's picture editing as an example, and has itself been removed to the recycle bin, thus perfectly illustrating my point.

And then . . . wait for it . . . someone at Uncommonly Dense mentions the Stalin editing in the comments following that strange Dembski rant about the (non) editing of some comments by Wolpert.

Naturally, the commenter gets it wrong on the specifics as well, adding Lenin to what was really Stalin's practice of removing Trotsky and other former friends from pictures.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Look, I don't know you. But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works. You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience. Am I wrong

Even better than the fundamentalist bible reader who confuses the menu with the meal.

You can't eat rhetoric Sal (you can't **** it either)

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

With no training in 2004 I deduced Reiner von Protch's [sic] numbers (which by the way are represented by some dots in that graph), were fabricated, bogus, and useless. He got away with fraud for 30 years. I'd say, even with no training, I can smell a rat. But you don't have to believe one iota of what I say.

I found where you made this claim on Uncommon Descent, but only after von Protsch's fraud was discovered. Should I believe that you found this out months earlier? Should I ask you to prove that you knew von Protsch was fraudulent before anybody else? That's an extraordinary claim to make, and yet you've provided no evidence for it.

Why is this relevant? Because you say that Tiggy could not do the math you asked him to do. But if your asking was a red herring (as I think it was), and not relevant, then he has no reason to prove his bona fides to you. The thing is, I think that Tiggy could do the math, but chose not to because he recognized that it was not relevant to his original, unanswered question.

As to your ability to concede some points: Congratulations. I agree that your conversation with Jellison, for example, was unproblematic because, as you put it:

Quote

1. He knows what he is talking about2. He doesn't willfullly [sic] misrepresent others3. He is cordial and civil4. He takes time to understand the opposing position, spending hours analyizing [sic] it and carefully considering it, going to great pains to represent it accurately.

These are all behaviors characteristic of Dr. Jellison in that exchange. I am not sure they represent your behavior in, for example, your exchange with Tiggy.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Sal is getting tired of being publicly humiliated on his own forum, so he's making YC invitation only

Quote

Asshat Cordova: Finally, things could get awfully boring at YoungComsos from now on. We're closing the gates and making it an invitation only forum. I will aim for dialogue like I had with the qualified scientists here.

If you can't stand the heat, run screaming from the kitchen.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Sal is getting tired of being publicly humiliated on his own forum, so he's making YC invitation only

Quote

Asshat Cordova: Finally, things could get awfully boring at YoungComsos from now on. We're closing the gates and making it an invitation only forum. I will aim for dialogue like I had with the qualified scientists here.

If you can't stand the heat, run screaming from the kitchen. :D :D :D

I've responded to Sal's latest rant with selections from OA/Tiggy's message to me. Thanks for permitting me to do that. Let's see if he bans me for bringing you back in by proxy.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

There is a different interaction when trying to persuade than when trying to solicit corrective review and feedback.

Hey, what do you know? We agree. I'm sorry, however, that you're getting this impression:

Quote

I'm getting the impression you're trying to put a one size fits all evaluation of what I write. What the rhetoric applied in one venue (like UD) is inappropriate for another (the discussion forum).

The problem, IMO, is that although there are important differences between the kinds of rhetorical moments you identify, they are really points on a continuum and the boundaries are very, very fuzzy.

Consider what happens when a scholar submits a work for publication. Now, there is a crucial sense in which the work is persuasive: in the first instance, the contributing author is trying to convince two anonymous peers that the work is worth publishing. Later, should the work be published, one goal is to convince readers that the work is correct. (Note that I'm using "convince" for your "persuade"; these have subtly distinct meanings in rhetoric. One form of the distinction is that people are convinced of a view but persuaded to action. We might say, for example, that some author(s) are trying to persuade others to perform follow-up experiments.)

OK, so in all of these ways the work attempts to persuade (or convince). The act of seeking publication is even kind of aggressive, in that the author(s) think the work should be out there and that it demands attention (at least of the tenure committee!.

But there are other ways that the act of seeking publication is profoundly submissive. We say that works are "submitted" for publication, and the word is meaningful. The authors will (generally) submit to the judgment of the peer reviewers. The authors will (generally) submit later to the scientific reception of the work. Publication is an attempt an convincing and/or persuading, yes, but it is also and at the same time a submission to the judgment of the scientific community.

The problem I'm seeing is that it's not clear where this forum lies, or what the boundaries are. For example, you've been persuaded to drop some of your arguments. Good: that shows something, including that the forum may be persuasive from the perspective of the other (if not from your perspective). But in a dialogic forum, persuasion and convincing go on all the time. Perhaps your recent decision to close the forum to all but the invited is an acknowledgment of the ambiguous status of forums like this. But as I've suggested earlier, it's easy to use doctrines like "civility" to avoid uncomfortable questions.

Aristotle famously defined rhetoric as "the counterpart of dialectic." The precise meaning of this phrase has been debated ever since, but the general view now is that rhetoric and dialectic are not easily separated -- no more than "fact" and "theory," to go back to my old debate (cut off at UD) with Gil Dodgen.

I notice that Sal still does not address AT ALL the huge holes in his reasoning and his invalid assumptions, but is still whining about "Waaa!! He won't plug numbers into the calculator!!"

NO mention of why he thinks the racemization constant should be unchanging, in light of the tons of physical evidence that shows it does change considerably.

NO mention of the empirically measured D/L ratios

NO mention that if even if you assume a non-changing constant and use the kinetic equation with the measured D/L values, you still get dates that are way older than the YEC 6000 year old model.

The only way to get the YEC dates to fit are to assume the measured D/L ratios are wrong , the kinetic equation is wrong, or both.

Ask Sal which one he thinks is wrong.

Oh, and I just loved the fact that Asshat Sal now accuses me of being a criminal low-life, and that he has disdain for my criminal behavior against scientific inquiry

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Sal, you're going to have to help me out on this, because I'm no expert. You write:

Quote

Tiggy has misrepresented my views. The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging. It does not mean I believe or I assume they do not change, because we know they do. Tiggy employed a strawman rhetorical form and attributed arguments and ideas to me which I did not make, nor intended to make.

The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.

If "The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging," and "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," then doesn't it follow that good data (for you) correspond with unchanging rates?

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Sal, you're going to have to help me out on this, because I'm no expert. You write:

Quote

Tiggy has misrepresented my views. The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging. It does not mean I believe or I assume they do not change, because we know they do. Tiggy employed a strawman rhetorical form and attributed arguments and ideas to me which I did not make, nor intended to make.

The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.

If "The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging," and "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," then doesn't it follow that good data (for you) correspond with unchanging rates?

Good data correspond to changing rates that are changes within reasonable physical and chemical limits. The green line represents the ideal, and some amount of variation from the ideal is permissible. Too much variation from the ideal ought to raise suspicion!

Some of the dots are well beyond reasonable physical and chemical limits, so much so that some scientists are arguing that yet-to-be-discovered chemical laws must be at work since C-14 is "God's truth". But this is like Bill Clinton trying to explain the DNA evidence with Lewinski by some yet-to-be-discovered chemical law. Something doesn't ring valid with such a promisory note.

The difficulty is using the English language to express mathematical concepts. Thus it is easy to mis-interpret the intended meaning. It is also easy for me to express my idea in a way that confuses the issue rather than clarifies it. I could express it mathematically, but making it more rigorous does not make it more clear (like a legal document is more rigorous, but not necessarily more clear). This is perhaps THE greatest challenge in scientific rhetoric...

But anyway, consider this illustration. Let's say college students did an exothermic chemistry experiment and the ideal result would be their thermometers would read 78.0000 degrees. The good data will tend to congregate around 78.0000 degrees. Now, we may have slight erors and variations in each student's test tube, and that results in differences from the ideal. We can define the range of results about 78.000 that would be deemed "good", i.e. say numbers from 68 to 88 degrees.

In similar manner, the green line demarcates the ideal result. When I said "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," it is in the sense of the temperature experiment I described. Some dots ought to be above the green and some below. But in actuality, most if not all are below the green line, some way below.

Further, the actual distirbution of dots is clearly non-Random, but systematically down. Hence, this is not suggestive of random error but a systematic error (exactly the point of my thread). It would be like us expecting to see students get lab results from 68 to 88 degrees, but instead they ALL report results from 48-58 degrees. Something would be really wrong in that case.

If your issue is my wording, I accept the editorial objection.

Another way of saying it is that we would expect lots of dots above the green line. The plot suggests systematic errors because all the dots are below the green line, and some VERY far below it.

Now, how far above or below the green is tolerable? The graph itself suggests what are tolerable variations, namely the width defined between the purple lines. But this variation is centered about the red line, not the green line. This is suggestive of a systematic error (meanin an error resulting from the way we make measurements).

This seems like obvious BS (ideal? what the hell? -- and also, there's that whole decay thing which is evaded), but I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond beyond the obvious, and he's kicked off all the people who know anything. Could somebody help me in responding? On the board or in a private message -- either is fine.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Double LOL! What a big smelly pile of tard from Sol! He's caught, he knows he's caught, so he's doing his best word-salad tossing to try and confuse the issue.

Quote

Asshat Cordova:Good data correspond to changing rates that are changes within reasonable physical and chemical limits.

Ask him what the 'reasonable physical and chemical limits' are, and how he determined them.

Quote

Asshat Cordova:The green line represents the ideal, and some amount of variation from the ideal is permissible. Too much variation from the ideal ought to raise suspicion!

Ask him why the green line (= zero change in the rate constant) should be considered ideal, when it is just a placeholder for actual empirical results? Ask him what 'too much variation' is, and how he determined it is not permissible. Permissible by whom?

Ask him why both M Brown and RH Brown agree and accept that the rate constant diminishes with sample age?

Ask him why, even if we force fit to the empirical D/L data to his his "ideal" line (as RH Brown did in his Table 2) that the equation still produces ages well older than the claimed YEC 6000 YBP?

Ask him if he accepts the empirically measured D/L ratios as accurate (which he must, as he's been basing his whole claims on them)

Ask him if he accepts the kinetic equation to be correct (which he must, as he's been using it constantly)

As I mentioned before, the only way to get the YEC dates to fit are to assume the measured D/L ratios are wrong , the kinetic equation is wrong, or both. Point this out to him, than get him to explain it.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

When in the very second post of the AAR/C14 thread he presents Walt Brown's "excellent explanation of Radio-Carbon Dating flaws" that states

Quote

Radiocarbon dating is becoming increasingly important in interpreting the past. However, one must understand how it works and especially how a flood affected radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years are probably accurate.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

It is . . . easy for me to express my idea in a way that confuses the issue rather than clarifies it.

You ain't kidding, buster. But I object to a lot more than your wording. You write,

Quote

The difficulty is using the English language to express mathematical concepts. Thus it is easy to mis-interpret the intended meaning.

True enough. But the problem is not the English: what you said would be contradictory in any language. It's practically a syllogism. I'll call it

Cordova's RulePremise A: The green line represents an unchanging rate constant. Premise B: Points far away from the green line represent fraudulent data. Conclusion: Non-fraudulent data must show a rate constant that is or is very close to unchanging.

If you hold the first two premises, the conclusion follows. If you think the rate constant changes, then either Premise A or Premise B must be wrong.

But the rate constant diminishes, it does not go up, with age. Hey, even RH Brown accepts that, and Michael Brown. So why would we expect any of the dots to go above the green line?

A few more questions:

Quote

Good data correspond to changing rates that are changes within reasonable physical and chemical limits

What are those limits, and how did you determine them?

Quote

The green line represents the ideal, and some amount of variation from the ideal is permissible.

I don't see why it's the ideal, or how you've determined what's a permissible variation. It certainly doesn't seem like an ideal that anyone in the scientific community buys. And please don't quote that 1974 letter again -- as I mentioned, that was refuted at the time of publication, in the very next pages.

Quote

But anyway, consider this illustration. Let's say college students did an exothermic chemistry experiment and the ideal result would be their thermometers would read 78.0000 degrees. The good data will tend to congregate around 78.0000 degrees. Now, we may have slight erors and variations in each student's test tube, and that results in differences from the ideal. We can define the range of results about 78.000 that would be deemed "good", i.e. say numbers from 68 to 88 degrees.

Argument by analogy: a nice rhetorical form. It's a bit simplistic, though, and it assumes a lot. It's only appropriate if the unchanging "ideal" rate in your premises is correct, which requires (I believe) rejecting either the kinetic equation and the accuracy of empirically measured D/L ratios.

A more appropriate analogy would be if you gave everybody a thermometer in a room at 72.0 degrees F and then sent them out in different directions in the dead of winter. Each person was told to check the thermometer at a different time: the first at 1 minute, the second at 2 minutes, etc. Probably there'd be some variation depending on where they walked, the different conditions, etc., but the measurements taken later go lower and lower.

H

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Looks good H, let's see how Sal wiggles and squirms to avoid the questions

On a side note, I see Sal finally responded to ThoughtProvoker's excellent questions on the AAR/C14 thread. What did brave Mr. Cordova do? He completely ignored TP's questions, and instead launched into a simple minded explanation for how exponential decay works. Never mind that TP has an EE degree, has known about exponential decay since freshman calculus, and asked Sal specific intelligent questions about the exponential equation Sal used in the graph.

(shake head and chuckles out loud)

Sal, don't ever change, EVAR!

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

C-14 under current conditions is sometimes accurate to within 2 years! But there are conditions when something as weakly accurate as amino acid racemization can surpass C-14 dating, namely, if the atmospheric concentration of C-14 in the past was less than it is now. Other lines of data show this rather convincingly.

Quote

if there is a technical flaw in our (Walt, RH, Michael Brown, myself, others), this would be a good time to get feedback.

BTW, all that data is still available in the YC recycle bin under "Tiggy's remains". I'd be tickled pink in someone would repost it.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Well Hermagoras, Cordova's respone to your last post is up. To absolutely no one 's surprise, spineless Sal once again completely ignored the tough technical questions. He did manage to accuse me of quote mining though , and now claims that anyone who gives the YEC articles a "fair and charitable reading" MUST agree with his position.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

I can't seem to reply on Young Cosmos. I can log in, and preview a message, but I when I try to submit a post it kicks me back to the editing board. I've been able to post a message to that effect here. I wonder what will happen next . . . .

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

I can't seem to reply on Young Cosmos. I can log in, and preview a message, but I when I try to submit a post it kicks me back to the editing board. I've been able to post a message to that effect here. I wonder what will happen next . . . .

If it was anyone else besides Slimy Sal, I'd say "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity". However, considering what he's done to the account of virtually every single dissenter though...

Let us know if you get an explanation and can post again.

In the mean time, Asshat's got a boner on because he was introduced to a new YEC website full of sciency-sounding gobbledygook.

Different day, same circus, same clown.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

"For example, the degree of time dilation predicted when we start to look at objects at say about 30,000 light years is about 59, their physical motions will appear to be slowed down by factors of 59!"

Yeah, I've been following that too - it's hilarious! Sal invited TP over because TP is a EE like Sal. Now TP's not playing the straight man flunky that Sal expected. Oops!

How long before TP's account starts having 'posting issues'?

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Sal's now mostly talking to himself on his boards. I wonder why that would be

Almost all the threads have Salvador as the person who added the last comment, and if they don't it's because Sal is afraid to address the issues in the thread.

E.G in the " Creation Science" section, the last non-Sal comment is from Wed Aug 08.

I guess Sal should see that it's only him who's interested in his garbage. Him and us

If we hop over to the intelligent design section the last post was by Sal on Mon Aug 06.

There is a thread there by a chap called "chunk" and he asks

Quote

Anybody got any hard figures for the "information" in flagellum etc? Not the probability of them coming into existence fully formed , but an actual number that goes up and down (well, only down I suppose if genetic entropy theory is true! depending on the mutation.

So, for example, a petri dish of bacteria will have each bacteria with an average CSI of X, but some can go so high as Y or low as Q.

what an interesting question. And more interesting that Sal has left that thead alone. You'd think he'd jump in with an answer to such a simple question, but nothing at all from Sal on that.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Sal's now mostly talking to himself on his boards. I wonder why that would be :)

Almost all the threads have Salvador as the person who added the last comment, and if they don't it's because Sal is afraid to address the issues in the thread.

E.G in the " Creation Science" section, the last non-Sal comment is from Wed Aug 08.

I guess Sal should see that it's only him who's interested in his garbage. Him and us :p

If we hop over to the intelligent design section the last post was by Sal on Mon Aug 06.

There is a thread there by a chap called "chunk" ;) and he asks

Quote

Anybody got any hard figures for the "information" in flagellum etc? Not the probability of them coming into existence fully formed , but an actual number that goes up and down (well, only down I suppose if genetic entropy theory is true!) depending on the mutation.

So, for example, a petri dish of bacteria will have each bacteria with an average CSI of X, but some can go so high as Y or low as Q.

what an interesting question. And more interesting that Sal has left that thead alone. You'd think he'd jump in with an answer to such a simple question, but nothing at all from Sal on that.

HEATHEN!! BACTERIAL ENTROPY ALWAYS GOES DOWN , EXCEPT WHEN IT GOES UP. IT NEVER GOES SIDEWAYS EXCEPT WHEN FATHER O'DON JUAN GETS THE KEYS TO THE CELLAR. HOMO!!!

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post. This would also mean the sun began generating more gamma-rays, x-rays, and UV light over time. There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent.

It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post. This would also mean the sun began generating more gamma-rays, x-rays, and UV light over time. There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent.

The thing that amuses me most about ole Sal is he can say this with a straight face

Quote

uncertain effect on warming of Earth if sun radiating in lower wavelength, there needs to be a compensating mechanism, although photo synthesis and color vision could remain unaffected.

After all god is standing right there doing it in the first place, what better compensating mechanism could you ask for? Why appeal to any other force, or try to rationalize it. I mean, at what point is Sal going to start investigating the mechanism the universe was created with in the first place? Or how the bush could burn? Or how exactly water turned to wine?

At what point does Sal draw the line? I suspect it's at the point the line kinda blurs into a load of blah equations, just complex enough to be fuzzy to non scientists. just like the entire fan base of ID/DS/UD in fact.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post.

What does the author of that think he's saying? Sounds like he's mixing up red shift from expansion with red or blue shift due to relative motion - none of which applies to the sun since its distance from the Earth is relatively constant, and far too small for universe expansion to be relevant.

It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post.

What does the author of that think he's saying? Sounds like he's mixing up red shift from expansion with red or blue shift due to relative motion - none of which applies to the sun since its distance from the Earth is relatively constant, and far too small for universe expansion to be relevant.

Henry

What Sal thinks he is doing is providing explanations for observations that fit (mangle) the data but which also support his conclusion of a young universe.

If we adjust the speed of light like so then the universe is only 6000 years old

I mean, one of his aims is to make the figures for accelerated nuclear decay work out so that Adam and Eve don't get fried!

So, after getting (from what I can tell) roundly slated by SCheeseman who says

Quote

So you have two factors that would fundamentally alter the whole dynamics of a supernova: the ratio of the rates of expansion to radioactive decay is completely different, and the ratio of the energy released by thermal means and by radioactive means is altered as well. Despite this, we observe the same decay curves, even in galaxies 200 million light years away as we do in those 10 milion light years away.

The same arguments can be applied to Cepheid variables; at least some component of the variation is gravitational, and the ratio of the graviatational to CDK-dependent components is so vastly different in the CDK model that we should see fundamentally different behaviour even as close as the Globular clusters, let alone the Andromeda galaxy.

Sal then says says

Quote

I thank you for pointing out difficulties in our ideas, but I'm at the point I will probably split time to gather research on the thawing effect and the distance dilation issue. We have prima facie evidence this could be the case. Tifft argued there is strong evidence of time-varying redshifts. There is no reason the experiment can't be repeated.

Yeah, no reason at all except I think it would be the first ever actual ID/YEC/IDC experiment carried out to my knowledge.

Quote

If the thawing tests succeed, well, then there will be a lot of hard work ahead to find a viable theory.

Sal also mentioned something called the "Evolutionary hypothesis of radioactivity". I'm guessing he really means the idea that standard radioactivity axioms support an old earth, so they must be wrong.

When asked to expand upon it he says

Quote

There are several ideas for the presence of radioactivity:

1. stellar-planetary evolution (the evolutionary hypothesis) [not the same as biological evolution]

4. little or no created radioactivity, a late phenomena due to a rare mechanical, chemical, electrical reaction or a cosmogenic source or sources of things like neutrons(Brown unpublished, undeveloped speculation), followed up with accelerated decay

The problem with the stellar-planetary evolution model is uranium, being dense, should have sunk to the depths of the Earth and stayed there, not risen to the surface. Yet we find it in relative abundance at the surface. This would be true in any sort of "liquid" model of solid rock which geologist use. They say solid rock can be modeled like a liquid over great time scales and even the Earth was molten perhaps at one time. The "crustal recycling" ideas also fails to explain the presence of uranium at the surface because of the density issue. The same would be true of most other dense substances! Of course perhaps some chemical compound of uranium that is not so dense can help, but then we're still stuck with the issue of figuring out the mix of whatever exists on the surface in light of the density problem. Something doesn't add up either way.

And the best line

Quote

Something doesn't add up either way.

And anyway, how does Sal propose to tell if the "earth was molten at some time"

And has Sal not completely oversimplified things? In his model, the atmospheric gases would settle into layers for the same reason that the

Quote

"crustal recycling" ideas also fails to explain the presence of uranium at the surface because of the density issue

Something does not add up? It appears that thing is Sal's inability to use a search engine

We might further ask how long ago this synthesis of uranium occurred. Given

* the present day abundances of U-235 and U-238 in the various 'shells' forming our planet, * a knowledge of the half-lives of these isotopes, and * the age of the Earth (c 4.55 billion years) - known from various radiometric 'clocks', including those of the uranium-to-lead decay chains.

we can calculate the abundances of U-235 and U-238 at the time the Earth was formed. Knowing further that the production ratio of U-235 to U-238 in a supernova is about 1.65, we can calculate that if all of the uranium now in the solar system were made in a single supernova, this event must have occurred some 6.5 billion years ago.This 'single stage' is, however, an oversimplification. In fact, multiple supernovae from over 6 billion to about 200 million years ago were involved. Additionally, studies of the isotopic abundances of elements, such as silicon and carbon in meteorites, have shown that more than ten separate stellar sources were involved in the genesis of solar system material.

Ten separate sources huh Sal? Can you model even begin to explain the formation of uranium? Never mind where we find it in the crust...

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

The Evil Evolutionist Conspriracy, has forced Timex to corner the market, to keep IDists and YECers from doing the vital experiments that will PROVE their talking points, I mean theory. And just like Sal, they take a licking and keep on ticking.

Unfortuantely.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

By now, Joseph Fourier had developed a theory of heat conduction. It was based on avant-garde mathematics that a lot of people couldn't accept. Then, in 1862, a British scientist, Lord Kelvin, used Fourier's theory to calculate the age of the earth. He knew the earth's temperature increased one degree Fahrenheit for each 50 feet you went into the ground. He guessed that the earth began as molten rock at 7000° F. By solving Fourier's equation, Kelvin found that it must have taken a hundred million years for the earth's temperature to level out to one degree every 50 feet.

Emphasis by TPH.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

And so there is the missing link question of how a star is formed of real matter and dark matter. If Dark matter is gravitational, why does it not accrete (attract to each other and coagulate)? One has to one wonder how stars and planets form in the presence of Dark matter. Something about this seems incredibly unwholsome. Dark matter can assemble galaxies and keep them intact, yet somehow it did not accrete into planets and stars. One could argue that Dark Matter is diffuse, to which I would say "Why?". Why would it coagulate enough to form galaxies, yet not coagulate to help form stars and planets.

So the missing link here is not just the population III star, but a formation mechanism involving Dark Matter.

yeah, whatever Sal, whatever.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Oh no, it's the incontrovertible argument from misspelled unwholesomeness! We should just admit goddidit to prevent further embarassment.

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

And so there is the missing link question of how a star is formed of real matter and dark matter. If Dark matter is gravitational, why does it not accrete (attract to each other and coagulate)? One has to one wonder how stars and planets form in the presence of Dark matter. Something about this seems incredibly unwholsome. Dark matter can assemble galaxies and keep them intact, yet somehow it did not accrete into planets and stars. One could argue that Dark Matter is diffuse, to which I would say "Why?". Why would it coagulate enough to form galaxies, yet not coagulate to help form stars and planets.

So the missing link here is not just the population III star, but a formation mechanism involving Dark Matter.

yeah, whatever Sal, whatever.

Meanwhile, in the real world, actual science is getting done on the subject.

There are things we don't know about dark matter. The only logical conclusion is that it's all a load of nonsense and everything's 6,000 years old. Isn't that right, Sal?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

A link on YoungCosmos will take you to this biography of Walt Brown, which is apparently a chapter in a book about "Christian Men of Science". Some of the other chapters are devoted to Faraday, Maxwell, and that true champion of science, Henry Morris. No women, of course; maybe that is a separate book with a chapter on FtK.

Thus I suppose one can provisionally accept the universe must be at least 30,000 years old. That is reasonable, and should be kept in mind.

He never gives, up, he tries to "explain" the tail away

Quote

The local interstellar medium didn't have a powerful gust (for lack of better word, I will use wind analogies) which drove the tail backward. Even a stationary object moving at 0 km/s can have along trail if a medium is moving moving fast relative to the object, such as:

If you read the thread G. P. Jellison is educating Sal on some basic facts. I bet Sal is wondering how he can ban G. P. Jellison and save face, especially as G. P. Jellison is practically the only person posting on hte board now that Sal's banned everybody else!Linky

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Near massless low energy neutrinos or something very similar just a f*ck of a lot of them.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Thus I suppose one can provisionally accept the universe must be at least 30,000 years old. That is reasonable, and should be kept in mind.

He never gives, up, he tries to "explain" the tail away

? ?

Quote

The local interstellar medium didn't have a powerful gust (for lack of better word, I will use wind analogies) which drove the tail backward. Even a stationary object moving at 0 km/s can have along trail if a medium is moving moving fast relative to the object, such as:

If you read the thread G. P. Jellison is educating Sal on some basic facts. I bet Sal is wondering how he can ban G. P. Jellison and save face, especially as G. P. Jellison is practically the only person posting on hte board now that Sal's banned everybody else!Linky

Do you think that Sal realizes that once he provisionally accepts 30,000 years, that this fact alone shows that Setterfield's idea is bunk, and hence the universe is 13 billion years old?

Of course not.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

The designer created those diamonds on a Monday ( in the dark) and by Teusday the place was cool enough to ride around on dinosaurs.

Really I just wish those guys would run those silly ideas past Sal before rushing off to print, it would save so much time. Sal could just say "Nah, I'm going to moderate your ass" and that would be end of it.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

And in fact, a universe of a few hundred million years would adequately refute Darwinian evolution and favor some form of special creation. It just might not be what the YEC community really wants, but it would be a victory for both the OEC and YEC camp.

As we all know, the age of the universe directly correlates to the truthiness of "darwinism".

And Sal's pride is growing, could there be a fall! :)

Quote

I apologize for my absence as I was tied up. If you haven't heard, there is a chance that I will be in the cast of Ben Stein's "Expelled", the pro-ID movie. I was busy tracking down leads on that story lately.

So on the one hand Sal gets excited about a propaganda piece and on the other admits there is no evidence for his position!

Quote

As I have said, I'm only about 85% convinced YEC is true, and on empirical grounds I could not say I find the evidence anywhere it needs to be to be viable.

So even Sal admits there is no actual evidence, but he's happy to promote views that rely on such evidence to kids (if this film is aimed at college kids anyway).

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Sal:As I have said, I'm only about 85% convinced YEC is true, and on empirical grounds I could not say I find the evidence anywhere it needs to be to be viable.

So even Sal admits there is no actual evidence, but he's happy to promote views that rely on such evidence to kids (if this film is aimed at college kids anyway).

BWHAhhahahahahahahaha

That means he's 15% atheist and probably Catholic.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Sal obviously finds it useful to keep up the pretense of "I only go where the evidence leads" even if his starting point is somewhat absurd.

If he keeps this up, he'll be believing in an old universe and the power of RM+NS in no time :)

I mean, if unimpeachable evidence was presented on his forum that he had to accept that the universe is much older then his current target of a couple a hundred million years, and if he adjusts his viewpoint accordingly then what's left of his "young cosmos" claims?

Of course, we know it's just a pretense so he can appeal to "the kids" and be seen to be "open minded" about where the evidence leads. No different from AFDave in that regard, except at least AFDave was honest about it from the beginning whereas Sal is hiding behind the skirts of the scientific method.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

As I have said, I'm only about 85% convinced YEC is true, and on empirical grounds I could not say I find the evidence anywhere it needs to be to be viable.

It would be unethical not to make the YEC community aware of the difficulties you raise. This new phenomena is potentially fatal to the 6,000 version of YEC.

There is of course, for the sake of argument, a version of YEC which might not be in line with Genesis, but would put limits of say a few hundred million years. That may be empirically defensible even without, especally if the small universe hypothesis succeeds. I've been in touch with Robert Fritzius over the matter of futher inquiry into the small universe.

As I have stated I have far less indigestion over an alternate reading of Genesis than others here. And in fact, a universe of a few hundred million years would adequately refute Darwinian evolution and favor some form of special creation. It just might not be what the YEC community really wants, but it would be a victory for both the OEC and YEC camp.

There is plenty that troubles me over the mainstream models, not the least of whcih is the Big Bang. The YECs are not the only ones to object, but there is dissent from non-creationist quarters that is growing. The Big Bang theory could be overturned.

I apologize for my absence as I was tied up. If you haven't heard, there is a chance that I will be in the cast of Ben Stein's "Expelled", the pro-ID movie. I was busy tracking down leads on that story lately.

It is painfully evident that Sal wants a 6 day creation not only to confirm the biblical account but also do disprove "Darwinism". His new stance seems to be picked simply so that the time-frame for evolution would be too short rather than for any scientific reason.

I love that 85% number. My oldest son, when he was in second grade, loved to pull numbers out of his ass. It's what kids do. He's going into fifth grade now, and he's gotten over that practice. Same cannot be said for Sal.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Given the recent discussions of Sal and his notions on the FtK thread, I thought it was worthwhile to bump this thing back to the top just so that you can read Sal's opinions on the Guillermo Gonzalez affair. I won't link to the site, because only FtK can comment there, and because the post is pure Cordrivel as only Sal can excrete it, but one sentence is worth pointing out (my emphasis).

Quote

Let the reader judge for himself if the content of this video is deserving of the punishments received by Gonzalez.

Earth (old) to Sal - A tenure denial is not punishment. It is one of two possible outcomes when you take a tenure-track job. Just like failing is one of two possible outcomes when you take a course on the pass/fail system. And, in both cases, the person being tested has a lot of control over what happens, if they are well-prepared and if they pay reasonable attention to the rules of the game.

Good luck in grad school, dude. You've got a lot to learn.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

I still have posting privileges at Young Cosmos. I never alienated Sal enough to get booted. Anyway, I commented on his "I'm smarter than Darwin because I know more math" post, and he has responded with some sense that he's gone overboard. See here.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Sal got an "A" in his introductory physics course [edit - survey of the foundations of 20th century physics]. Yay Sal! He also continues his comparison of Darwin vs Maxwell, and likes the word "dolt." In fact, Darwin is a "feeble brained dolt" compared to Maxwell and Riemann.

Keep that word "dolt" at hand as you read the following:

Quote

We went through the major experiments which led to the development of modern physics.

I’m pleased to say, not one ounce of useless Darwinism was needed to comprehend the course material...

I was delighted that my first homework assignment was to show how the creationist Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics leads to various concepts in special realtivity: Lorentz Covariance and the Creationist Maxwell’s Equations. Note that I did not need one ounce of Darwinism to make the derivation. That’s because Darwinism isn’t science.

Not only that, not one ounce of chemistry was needed to make that derivation. That's because chemistry isn't a science. Nor one ounce of geology, biology, paleontology, meteorology, ecology, astronomy, or cosmology. Those must not be sciences either. Nor information theory, metallurgy, minerology, psychology, cognitive science, sociology, political science, or anthropology...Jesus, Sal, you're a fucking genius.

Quote

My experience in class only reinforces the fact that the claim that “Darwin’s theory is the central theory of science” is a falsehood promoted by Darwin’s followers. It has no basis in truth. I’d say Schrodinger’s and Maxwell’s equations are far more essential to the progress of science than any of Darwin’s unfounded speculations…

Who has ever claimed that "Darwin's theory is the central theory of science?" [reference to orifice deleted]

Quote

I can accept old-earth ideas as a working hypothesis. However, if Einstien’s theory and Maxwell’s equations can be amended to allow temporal-spatial variations of the speed of light, then various YEC cosmologies can succeed without being inconsistent with present operational physics. I look forward to exploring the possibility of variable speed of light (VSL) and will blog on developments in VSL periodically…

You gotta stand back and take this in to really appreciate Sal's idiotic grandiosity. Sal is saying, "The only real science is physics. And now that I have taken an introductory college course [edit - survey of the foundations of 20th century physics] I just might overturn the entire edifice of physics, which I so revere. Watch this space."

What was that word again? Right.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

This course covers a broad spectrum of topics related to the development of quantum and relativity theories. The understanding of modern physics and its applications is essential to the pursuit of advanced work in materials, optics, and other applied sciences. Topics include the special theory of relativity, particle-like properties of light, wavelike properties of particles, wave mechanics, atomic and nuclear phenomena, elementary particles, statistical physics, solid state, astrophysics and general relativity

"It is an awful and disgusting lie. It speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen. I am incensed and infuriated to have to respond to such ludicrous misinterpretation." - Will Smith after being quotemined in the tabloids.

Should come in handy in this thread, I think.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

This course covers a broad spectrum of topics related to the development of quantum and relativity theories. The understanding of modern physics and its applications is essential to the pursuit of advanced work in materials, optics, and other applied sciences. Topics include the special theory of relativity, particle-like properties of light, wavelike properties of particles, wave mechanics, atomic and nuclear phenomena, elementary particles, statistical physics, solid state, astrophysics and general relativity

I can accept old-earth ideas as a working hypothesis. However, if Einstien’s theory and Maxwell’s equations can be amended to allow temporal-spatial variations of the speed of light, then various YEC cosmologies can succeed without being inconsistent with present operational physics. I look forward to exploring the possibility of variable speed of light (VSL) and will blog on developments in VSL periodically…

You gotta stand back and take this in to really appreciate Sal's idiotic grandiosity. Sal is saying, "The only real science is physics. And now that I have taken an introductory college course I just might overturn the entire edifice of physics, which I so revere. Watch this space."

What was that word again? Right.

Well, at least he recognizes that Young Earth Creationism is incompatible with the past 100+ years of physics.

That he thinks the physics must therefore be wrong is just kind of sad.

"It is an awful and disgusting lie. It speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen. I am incensed and infuriated to have to respond to such ludicrous misinterpretation." - Will Smith after being quotemined in the tabloids.

Should come in handy in this thread, I think.

Quote

Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good.

"Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'let me do the most evil thing I can do today'," said Will. "I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good'. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming.

"I wake up every day full of hope, positive that every day is going to be better than yesterday. And I'm looking to infect people with my positivity. I think I can start an epidemic."

You can clearly tell the man loves his Hitler.

--------------"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

I was delighted that my first homework assignment was to show how the creationist Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics leads to various concepts in special realtivity: Lorentz Covariance and the Creationist Maxwell’s Equations.

Maxwell's Equations led to Maxwell's Equations?

Quote

Note that I did not need one ounce of Darwinism to make the derivation. That’s because Darwinism isn’t science.

Note that I did not need one ounce of Darwinism to make the derivation. That’s because Darwinism isn’t science.

I expect better logic from people who've just smoked weed.

You rang, m'lord?

--------------"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Well, it is possible that the DI will want to sign Sal up for a cushy job bashing Darwinists once he has a degree. He certainly has a nose brown enough for that job application, if he wants it. He can be Luskin's apprentice.

Of course, it is also possible that the DI will have their funding decline to a trickle by the time Sal gets his degree. I can't imagine that the sponsors have been too happy with them lately. The DI fellows might have to get real jobs, give lectures at $10K per appearance, or sell books to keep the family fed. I don't think Sal has much talent in any of those areas, so it will be interesting to see where he ends up when the DI crashes. The stable of folks on the payroll seems pretty large, and pink slips might be on the way for some if the predicted Darwinist Waterloo doesn't happen pretty soon...

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

I just finished a bag of Doritos, actually. I'll have to save those for a rainy day.

Merry Christmas.

--------------"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

These bad apples have caused the general public to form a stereotype in their mind that atheists are mean-spiritied amoral people like Madeline Murry O’Hair. O’Hair regularly courted criminals as her cronies and was punished by God through cruel death.

There is much trouble in the world. For example, I mentioned this horrible crime committed against my family: Memorial to murder and rape victim, Connie Reyes. Why would such things happen? Why did Sean Taylor have to die? Or why would Darwin have to have deformed children after he inbred with his cousin?

The birth of Darwin’s deformed child caused him to have much resentment toward the idea of special creation. But the irony is that in the Darwinian world, deformed kids are only part of the evolutionary process of random mutation...That’s the cruel irony of Darwin’s theory.

As the father of a daughter (now adult) born with a physical handicap, I'm here to say that it is the rectal prolapse that is Salvador Cordova's cerebral cortex that is "deformed."

But I'll also reproduce the following, which I wrote to a close friend following the birth of my daughter 21 years ago. To protect her privacy, and to honor Darwin's suffering, I'll change her name in what follows to "Mary Eleanor":

"I have always felt, deep in me, that there is no a-priori meaning for events like Mary Eleanor's prenatal injury. This event has required of me deep grieving and new loving, though has not altered, or even challenged, my universe-view, Einstein not withstanding. When friends gather around and say things like "everything happens for a reason, so God must have something in mind" I accept the consolation intended, though feel clearly, intuitively, unequivocally that this is comforting human fantasy. It is denial, in the same way that "grandpa is in heaven now and we'll be with him one day" denies the frightful mystery of life and death. If one really wishes to live intimately with the reality of human existence, than one must relinquish this kind of fantasy and accept the essentially random byplay that is a partner in all reality. Randomness is real. Mary Eleanor is wonderful. Grandpa isn't in a heaven. I am not bitter."

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

There was a time when, not having taken part in long arguments at ARN and other forums, I did not understand why so many of my friends in the anti-creationist community held Sal Cordova in such low esteem.